Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of modified dental composites as an alternative to Poly(methyl methacrylate) bone cement

  • ORIGINAL PAPER
  • Published:
Polymer Bulletin Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Conventional PMMA bone cement, and more lately BisGMA (bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate) composite bone cement, is employed in various bone augmentation procedures such as vertebroplasty. Problems with these materials include high curing exotherm and shrinkage, leakage of toxic components after insertion and exhibition of a modulus mismatch between bone cement and weak bone. A novel high molecular weight dimethacrylate, polypropylene glycol dimethacrylate (PPG), was used in combination with urethane dimethacrylate, hydroxyethyl methacrylate, silica glass particles and fibres to create PPG fibre composite (PFC) dual paste materials. This study was designed to ascertain whether PFCs are a viable alternative to Cortoss™ composite bone void filler and Simplex P™ PMMA bone cement for osteoporotic vertebroplasty and fracture fixation applications. The degree of monomer conversion and curing kinetics of the PFCs and commercial bone cements were found using FTIR, while the mechanical properties were found through biaxial flexural testing. An equation was derived to describe the curing profiles of the PFCs and commercial bone cements. The curing profiles and equations and mechanical properties of the PFCs, Cortoss™ and Simplex P™ bone cements were compared. It was found that PFC materials had more complete monomer conversion, and faster cure than Cortoss™ and Simplex P. The flexural strength of some of the PFC materials was comparable to Cortoss™ and Simplex P. Incorporating fibres into the PFC materials prevented brittle fracture exhibited by Cortoss™ and mimicking the fracture behaviour of Simplex P.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Van Staa TP, Dennison EM, Leufkens HG, Cooper C (2001) Epidemiology of fractures in England and Wales. Bone 29(6):517–522

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lewis G, Xu H, Madigan S, Towler MR (2007) Influence of strontia on various properties of Surgical Simplex (R) P acrylic bone cement and experimental variants. Acta Biomater 3(6):970–979

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kuehn K-D, Ege W, Gopp U (2005) Acrylic bone cements: composition and properties. Orthop Clin North Am 36(1):17–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fries IB, Fisher AA, Salvati EA (1975) Contact dermatitis in surgeons from methylmethacrylate bone cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 57(4):547–549

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wnek GE (2008) Encyclopedia of biomaterials and biomedical engineering 2nd (eds) , Informa Healthcare, London p 4

  6. Lewis G (1997) Properties of acrylic bone cement: State of the art review. J Biomed Mater Res 38(2):155–182

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jiranek WA, Hanssen AD, Greenwald AS (2006) Antibiotic-loaded bone cement for infection prophylaxis in total joint replacement. J Bone Jt Surg 88(11):2487–2500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Santin M, Motta A, Borzachiello A, Nicolais L, Ambrosio L (2004) Effect of PMMA cement radical polymerisation on the inflammatory response. J Mater Sci Mater Med 15(11):1175–1180

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kane RJ, Yue W, Mason JJ, Roeder RK (2010) Improved fatigue life of acrylic bone cements reinforced with zirconia fibers RID A-9398-2008. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 3(7):504–511

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lewis A (2009) Drug Device Combination Products Delivery Technologies and Applications. Woodhead Publishing Ltd, Sawston, p 560

    Google Scholar 

  11. Pomrink GJ, DiCicco MP, Clineff TD, Erbe EM (2003) Evaluation of the reaction kinetics of Cortoss, a thermoset cortical bone void filler. Biomater 24(6):1023–1031

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Young AM, Rafeeka SA, Howlett JA (2004) FTIR investigation of monomer polymerisation and polyacid neutralisation kinetics and mechanisms in various aesthetic dental restorative materials. Biomater 25(5):823–833

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Young AM, Ng PYJ, Gbureck U, Nazhat SN, Barralet JE, Hofmann MP (2008) Characterization of chlorhexidine-releasing, fast-setting, brushite bone cements. Acta Biomater 4(4):1081–1088

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chung S, Yap A, Koh W, Tsai K, Lim C (2004) Measurement of Poisson’s ratio of dental composite restorative materials. Biomater 25(13):2455–2460

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Madigan S, Towler MR, Lewis G (2006) Optimisation of the composition of an acrylic bone cement: application to relative amounts of the initiator and the activator/co-initiator in Surgical Simplex P. J Mater Sci Mater Med 17(4):307–311

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sanus GZ, Tanriverdi T, Kafadar AM, Ulu MO, Uzan M (2005) Use of Cortoss for reconstruction of anterior cranial base: a preliminary clinical experience. Eur J Plast Surg 27(8):371–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hofmann MP, Young AM, Gbureck U, Nazhat SN, Barralet JE (2006) FTIR-monitoring of a fast setting brushite bone cement: effect of intermediate phases. J Mater Chem 16(31):3199–3206

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Rueggeberg F, Tamareselvy K (1995) Resin cure determination by polymerization shrinkage. Dent Mater 11(4):265–268

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Palin WM, Fleming GJ, Marquis PM (2005) The reliability of standardized flexure strength testing procedures for a light-activated resin-based composite. Dent Mater 21(10):911–919

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mehdawi I, Abou Neel EA, Valappil SP, Palmer G, Salih V, Pratten J et al (2009) Development of remineralizing, antibacterial dental materials. Acta Biomater 5(7):2525–2539

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Timoshenko SP, Kreiger SW (1964) Theory of plates and shells, 2nd edn. McGraw Hill Higher Education, New York

    Google Scholar 

  22. Higgs W, Lucksanasombool P, Higgs R, Swain M (2001) A simple method of determining the modulus of orthopedic bone cement. J Biomed Mater Res 58(2):188–195

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wilson KS, Zhang K, Antonucci JM (2005) Systematic variation of interfacial phase reactivity in dental nanocomposites. Biomater 26(25):5095–5103

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Karmaker A, Prasad A, Sarkar N (2007) Characterization of adsorbed silane on fillers used in dental composite restoratives and its effect on composite properties. J Mater Sci Mater Med 18(6):1157–1162

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhang H, Zhang M (2010) Effect of surface treatment of hydroxyapatite whiskers on the mechanical properties of bis-GMA-based composites. Biomed Mater 5(5):054106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Odian G (2004) Principles of Polymerization, 4th edn. Wiley Interscience, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  27. Young RJ, Lovell PA (1991) Introduction to polymers, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  28. Sideridou ID, Achilias DS, Kostidou NC (2008) Copolymerization kinetics of dental dimethacrylate resins initiated by a benzoyl peroxide/amine redox system. J Appl Polym Sci 109(1):515–524

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Turi EA (1997) Thermal characterization of polymeric materials. Academic Press, New York, p 1200

    Google Scholar 

  30. Sideridou I, Tserki V, Papanastasiou G (2002) Effect of chemical structure on degree of conversion in light-cured dimethacrylate-based dental resins. Biomater 23(8):1819–1829

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Abou Neel EA, Salih V, Revell PA, Young AM (2012) Viscoelastic and biological performance of low-modulus, reactive calcium phosphate-filled, degradable, polymeric bone adhesives. Acta Biomater 8(1):313–320

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Tacir I, Kama J, Zortuk M, Eskimez S (2006) Flexural properties of glass fibre reinforced acrylic resin polymers. Aust Dent J 51(1):52–56

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Vallittu P (1997) Oxygen inhibition of autopolymerization of polymethyl methacrylate-glass fibre composite. J Mater Sci Mater Med 8(8):489–492

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Garoushi S, Vallittu P, Lassila L (2007) Short glass fiber reinforced restorative composite resin with semi-inter penetrating polymer network matrix. Dental Mater 23(11):1356–1362

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Chung SM, Yap AUJ, Chandra SP, Lim CT (2004) Flexural strength of dental composite restoratives: comparison of biaxial and three-point bending test. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater 71B(2):278–283

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Shi L, Shi L, Wang L, Duan Y, Lei W, Wang Z et al (2013) The improved biological performance of a novel low elastic modulus implant. PLoS ONE 8(2):e55015

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Belkoff S, Mathis J, Erbe E, Fenton D (2000) Biomechanical evaluation of a new bone cement for use in vertebroplasty. Spine 25(9):1061–1064

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by UCL Eastman Dental Institute, 256 Gray’s Inn Road, London WC1X 8LD, UK

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Biomaterials and Tissue Engineering, UCL Eastman Dental Institute, 256 Gray’s Inn Road, London, WC1X 8LD, UK

    Kirsty Main, Muhammad A. Khan & Anne M. Young

  2. Mectalent Medical Services Oy, Veistämötie 15, 90620, Oulu, Finland

    Juha-Pekka Nuutinen

  3. Department of Dental Materials, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Khyber Medical University, Peshawar, 25100, KPK, Pakistan

    Muhammad A. Khan, Saad Liaqat & Nawshad Muhammad

Authors
  1. Kirsty Main
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Muhammad A. Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Juha-Pekka Nuutinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anne M. Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Saad Liaqat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nawshad Muhammad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Anne M. Young or Nawshad Muhammad.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Main, K., Khan, M.A., Nuutinen, JP. et al. Evaluation of modified dental composites as an alternative to Poly(methyl methacrylate) bone cement. Polym. Bull. 80, 13143–13158 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00289-023-04677-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00289-023-04677-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation